How will the income of these low-income drivers (an oxymoron as far as I’m concerned) be determined? Will they submit copies of their tax returns? Or is this just another outbreak of placard-itis?

The greater good would be to implement progressive policy in the income tax code, where it is visible and it can work. Screwing around with lower level systems, “means testing” every thing you can, drags down efficiency without significantly redistributing wealth. It assumes income level can be proven often and reliably, which is both wrong and disturbing. It is the desperate, ineffectual resort of a left wing that hasn’t recovered from the Reagan years. But there isn’t going to be a better opportunity to restore the income tax code than right now; if the left would rather fight for sliding discounts on haircuts than rise to the occasion and fix things where they need to be fixed, then to hell with their politics.

Wouldn’t the best tweak to the CP bill have been to have called it something else right from the very start? This name “Congestion Pricing” is killing it.

It says, “The streets are crowded and we’re going to clear them up by pricing out the users who can least afford to pay.”

That’s distasteful to most people. The name is elitist. It’s undemocratic. It’s a stick that’s only being used against the most vulnerable drivers.

Two suggestions:

1) “Mass Transit Fee” — There’s something that’s hard to oppose on any kind of class basis. We already know that people are more supportive when they’re told about how the money will go to fund mass transit. And even drivers could be pitched on the idea by saying that improved mass transit will make their drives easier, and give them increased commuting options. It’s a carrot, not a stick.

2) “Pollution Fee” or “Fresh Air Fee” — Who can oppose fresh air? Even the lowest income drivers have to acknowledge that their cars produce exhaust. You still give the money to mass transit, but you pitch it as a pollution measure that’s going to help poor kids avoid asthma, not as a penalty to weed out the lowest income drivers. Again, a carrot and not a stick.

This whole thing should be rebranded. (Not that I want it to be — I think the name’s fine the way it is.)

No, Dave, if you pay a round trip $10 MTA fare you pay no CP fee. The offset does not just apply to the in-bound trip.

As I’ve said, this is all about the placards. The police and fire unions certainly think so. And they have come out in opposition to CP, as reported here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/03/police-fire-unions-come-out-ag.html

Once again, there are the political class overlords, represented here, and the executive class overlords. The rest of us don’t matter.

We just get taxes and in theory get whatever public services and space are not allocated by placard or other means.

I agree that toll inequalities need to be addressed but would argue that the solution is one-way tolls everywhere to end toll-shopping. Easy to install EZ-Pass and cameras at all crossings.

Tolls on the East and Harlem river bridges also need to be implemented; just because the bridges are supposedly “paid off” doesn’t mean they are free to maintain.